BE 310420-RO
                                
                        STATE OF NEW YORK
            DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                  OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                           GERTZ PLAZA
                     92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                     JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
                                
                                
----------------------------------x
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.
                                        BE 310420-RO
       ARTHUR T. MOTT,                  DRO DOCKET NO.
                                        GBA 7-1-0007-RP
                        PETITIONER      TENANT: RICHARD HAFFNER
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
                                
On  May  7,  1987,  the above-named owner filed  a  petition  for
admin-istrative review of an order issued on April 28, 1987 by  a
Dis-rict  Rent  Administrator concerning  housing  accommodations
known  as 31 Brewster Street, Apartment 129, Glen Cove, New York,
wherein  the  Administrator determined  that  an  overcharge  had
oc-curred.

The  Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the  record
and   has  carefully  considered  that  portion  of  the   record
con-cerning the issues raised in the petition for review.

This  proceeding  was commenced on February  10,  1984  upon  the
filing of an overcharge complaint by the tenant under Docket  No.
GCTC  83-47.   The  tenant questioned, among  other  things,  the
validity  of  his  rent, his monthly garage  fee  and  electrical
sur-charges.

The  owner, in his answer, asserted that no overcharges  occurred
and  submitted copies of the leases of the current tenant  and  a
copy of the lease of the tenant immediately prior to the cur-rent
tenant.

On  December  13, 1984, the owner was requested to  submit  addi-
tional  evidence.   The Administrator explained that  information
that the owner had submitted to the DHCR in a previous, inde-
pendent matter contradicted some of the evidence submitted by the
owner  in this case.  This factual discrepancy questioned whether
the prior tenant's rent charge included a garage fee.


In  the  order issued March 7, 1985 under Docket No. GCTC  83-47,
the  Administrator found that the owner had not responded to  the
request  for further evidence and made his determination  that  a
rent   overcharge  had  occurred.   In  that  order,  the  lawful
sta-bililation rent was established at $556.29 from May  1,  1984
through  April  30,  1985 and the owner was  directed  to  refund
$3,635.06 in overcharges through March 31, 1985.

The  owner  filed a petition for administrative  review  of  that
order  (GCTC  83-47).   On  December 29, 1986,  the  Commissioner
issued   a   finding   in   the   administrative   appeal   under
Adminis-trative   Review   Docket   No.   ARL    02446-N.     The
Commissioner's  order  and opinion remanded  the  proceeding  for
further processing.  It was noted in this order and opinion that:

          1.The owner had submitted evidence to explain
          the discrepancy.
          
          2.The  owner had not been served nor did  the
          record  contain a copy of the document  which
          the  Administrator relied on as  constituting
          the discrepancy.
          
          3.The  electrical surcharge was not correctly
          calculated.
          
The  Commissioner requested that the Administrator, with adequate
written  notice to all parties and their attorneys to insure  due
process,  correct  the  errors  above  and  further  process  the
pro-ceeding.

In  the  instant  case  under Docket No.  GBA  7-1-0007  RP,  the
Admin-istrator  sent notice to the parties on  January  12,  1987
advising  them  of  the continued processing of  the  case.   The
notice stated that the Administrator was recognizing the evidence
previously  submitted to explain the discrepancy and was  serving
the  parties  with  the  document which  showed  the  garage  was
included  in the prior tenant's rent.  The parties were given  an
opportunity to comment and to submit any additional evidence.

The  owner  interposed  an answer stating in  substance  that  no
over-charges  occurred.  He again alleged,  among  other  things,
that the prior tenant had no garage.

In  the order here under review (GBA 7-1-0007-RP) issued on April
28,  1987, the Administrator established that the lawful stabili-
zation rent was $583.24 as of May 1, 1985 and directed the owner

to  refund  to the tenant $3,691.53 in overcharges through  April
30,  1985.   Because the tenant had vacated the subject apartment
after  May 1, 1985, the owner was further directed to refund  all
rents collected in excess of $583.24 per month after May 1, 1985.

In his petition for administrative review the owner requests that
the  Administrator's order be revoked.  He simply states that the
Administrator  failed  to comply with the  Commissioner's  remand
order under Docket No. ARL 02446-N.

After  careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the  opinion
that the petition should be denied.

The Commissioner finds that the Administrator correctly and
carefully  complied with each and every direction in the  Commis-
sioner's  remand  order.   At  no  point  was  the  Administrator
directed  as to what weight to give to the evidence submitted  or
how  much  probative value the submitted evidence contained.  The
Administrator was instructed to and scrupulously did insure  that
due  process rights were protected, and he examined all the  evi-
dence in the record.  Accordingly, the Administrator's order must
be affirmed.


THEREFORE,  pursuant to the Emergency Tenant Protection  Act  and
the Tenant Protection Regulations, it is

ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that if the owner has not complied with the Rent
Administrator's order upon the expiration of the period for
seeking judicial review of this order pursuant to Article 78 of
the Civil Practice Law and Rules, the tenant, who has vacated the
subject premises, may file and enforce a certified copy of this
order as a judgment in the amount of $3,691.53.


ISSUED:




ELLIOT SANDER
                                         Deputy Commissioner
    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name